noah: This is an attempt to reduce overhead, explain details about actions, minutes, etc.
... John said it was helpful
... Wants to uncover places where we disagree over little things, but not discuss these disagreements for a few weeks necessarily
... Review process at F2F, not now.

<masinter> no disagreements about content of document so far, want to edit for readability, e.g., separate out policy from process

noah: Please help in staying on top of issues. Think about which issues you care about
... Current telecon time OK?

HT: Will continue to have to leave at quarter past
... [that's not an objection]

stuart: We often make our reports public, btw. Group is on the hook to prepare 3 month summary

noah: Agenda - anything to add?

ashok: New item please at end... ...

ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection

noah: Do we want to actively consider reopening httpRange-14?

<noah> scribenick: noah

JR: I started a review of how this {ISSUE-57] got started. Saw under original aims to consider how 303 might be used, and other ways to get information about resource, warning about cacheing behavior, and question of how browsers treat the URL window in case or redirects. I haven't checked what browsers do.
... but I think browsers leave old URI in place.

<masinter> I think there's a 'category error', mixing specifications of languages and their semantics with recommendations about best practice for operational behavior, and making the semantics depend on the operational behavior actually following best practice

JR: I don't know what needs to be resolved, but a lot of activity has been happening independent of the TAG. I.e. link header, sitemetadata, and protocol that uses both of those to get information about resource (XRD)

AM: Where is 3rd one discussed?

JR: Not sure, maybe www-talk or httpbis WG, though it doesn't have to do with that. [www-talk@w3.org]

LM: Link header is an http header, so pertinent to httpbis.

JR: This is at next level up. None of these things are published or standardized yet. Link hdr is on standards track, the protocol is not.

<johnk> resource descriptor discovery

NM: Speaking as chair, is our de-facto short term goal to help these three groups land in a good place, separately or together?

<johnk> POWDER have mentioned the 'describedBy' attribute in this context

JR: Not sure about TAG as a whole, but I am interested.

<masinter> think we should discuss priorities before committing to do a lot more work on this

masinter: SUccess in using version identifier may depend on [...scribe lapse...]. Recent experience with PDF

noah: Larry, we may have looked at some of the relevant issues; consider going through the issue logs
... There's this line in AWWW that doesn't seem quite right
... Let's try to do a simple correction to AWWW
... rather than pulling on the ball of string

raman: Do it *only* if it can be done in one line

<masinter> I have an action item to deal with versioning in HTML5

noah: Two more actions to dispose of. Now action-181 on JAR

<noah> NM: Jonathan, do you want to do more on the formalism?

<noah> JAR:I don't need to, but TAG has asked.

<noah> NM: Propose we close this, since we've changed the context.

<noah> JR: I feel some obligation to Dave. Maybe I should work it out with him.

<johnk_> Can we extend the deadline for the action and revisit?

noah: Propose to close this as a TAG issue... even if stays open with JAR & DO

ISSUE-30 (BinaryXML-30): Standardize a "binary XML" format?

noah: There were concerns that the notion of doing an incompatible serialization of XML would be disruptive (this is history)
... Some people felt use cases and requirements didn't hang together so well
... So TAG met with them in France. They talked about compactness, which was not really such a concern...
... then about performance. In my recollection we are waiting for this. The work here is to figure out who owes whom what.

masinter: These issues came out when W3C was first considering starting this work

noah: Two efforts started at the workshop. Use cases & goals hunt led to 32 use cases.
... This seemed like a lot. There seemed to be methodology problems.

noah: We need to make sure we don't owe them anything at this point (or figure out what's owed).

masinter: Was this raised with the TAG?

noah: TAG chose to be proactive.

masinter: Still? [Does anyone on the TAG still want to be practive?]

noah: I do

raman: let it happen and see what happens

<masinter> i think the only appropriate response is to add an applicability statement that restricts the recommended domain of applicability

<masinter> or that adds some cautions etc

ht: I don't feel the speed issue continues to be a determine factor regarding whether this will be damaging to XML.
... The more important issue is, exactly how this stuff is served.
... Close the issue down for now, but we'll keep an eye on it.

ashok: ... You guys are specifying SOAP messages, but they want metadata. If you are in URI world, there are other ways to get it under development
... Why don't you think about allowing access differently in the SOAP and HTTP worlds?

<masinter> wonder if a metadata workshop would be useful -- too many different approaches to metadata going on to necessarily do this in tag